• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Mississippi church refuses to marry black couple

Like many Americans, I'm bored to tears of the mostly Jewish owned and operated press working up stories critical of Christianity in this country.

Right, so one stinking Southern hillbilly church momentarily refused to marry a black couple. The heavens fall.

Meanwhile, I should like to see if that black couple could marry in a synagogue.

*gasp*

No, they cannot. They cannot, because the rabbi will determine, as is largely their primary duty, that the bride and groom do not have Jewish ancestry in their maternal line. That they are goyim.

Oh, what about converts? It's a bit of a joke really, considering that of all major religions, conversion to Judaism could hardly be more onerous. Since neither bride nor groom is Jewish by birth, the likelihood they *both* could convert and marry in a synagogue is... to be polite. And statistically accurate. Infinitesimal.

So, the point of the story seems to be: Christian church is almost as racially inequitable as a Jewish synagogue. We're supposed to hate those bigoted Southern Christians and love them progressive Jews.

No. Regardless of what is politically palatable. Both are bigots, period.
seinfeld.gif
 
It may have nothing to do with racism, as the bride went to the church, her uncle worked there, and her dad was a member, as was the black woman interviewed for the story. Her wedding had already been set weeks before, so obviously the pastor and the staff at the church had no idea that anything was amiss. Someone else raised the issue, possibly based on a prophecy made in 1913 by the old gypsy woman outside town, that the first black couple to wed in that church will die in a fire on their wedding night and their spirits will forever wander the samps. The old folks in the town probably know all about it.

It's like some kind of racist Scooby Doo episode.

Or one with Scrappy. Really, just as bad when you think about it.
 
Like many Americans, I'm bored to tears of the mostly Jewish owned and operated press working up stories critical of Christianity in this country.

Right, so one stinking Southern hillbilly church momentarily refused to marry a black couple. The heavens fall.

Meanwhile, I should like to see if that black couple could marry in a synagogue.

*gasp*

No, they cannot. They cannot, because the rabbi will determine, as is largely their primary duty, that the bride and groom do not have Jewish ancestry in their maternal line. That they are goyim.

Oh, what about converts? It's a bit of a joke really, considering that of all major religions, conversion to Judaism could hardly be more onerous. Since neither bride nor groom is Jewish by birth, the likelihood they *both* could convert and marry in a synagogue is... to be polite. And statistically accurate. Infinitesimal.

So, the point of the story seems to be: Christian church is almost as racially inequitable as a Jewish synagogue. We're supposed to hate those bigoted Southern Christians and love them progressive Jews.

No. Regardless of what is politically palatable. Both are bigots, period.

Wow.

Cool story, bro.

Now if you'll politely excuse me I'm going to go enjoy some matzo and Manischewitz.
 
Like many Americans, I'm bored to tears of the mostly Jewish owned and operated press working up stories critical of Christianity in this country.
I think I've already heard this kind of reasoning one time, in the past. Now, if I could just actually remember when...
 
Like many Americans, I'm bored to tears of the mostly Jewish owned and operated press working up stories critical of Christianity in this country.

Right, so one stinking Southern hillbilly church momentarily refused to marry a black couple. The heavens fall.

Meanwhile, I should like to see if that black couple could marry in a synagogue.

*gasp*

No, they cannot. They cannot, because the rabbi will determine, as is largely their primary duty, that the bride and groom do not have Jewish ancestry in their maternal line. That they are goyim.

Oh, what about converts? It's a bit of a joke really, considering that of all major religions, conversion to Judaism could hardly be more onerous. Since neither bride nor groom is Jewish by birth, the likelihood they *both* could convert and marry in a synagogue is... to be polite. And statistically accurate. Infinitesimal.

So, the point of the story seems to be: Christian church is almost as racially inequitable as a Jewish synagogue. We're supposed to hate those bigoted Southern Christians and love them progressive Jews.

No. Regardless of what is politically palatable. Both are bigots, period.

adolf-hitler_11245015679.jpg
 
Like many Americans, I'm bored to tears of the mostly Jewish owned and operated press working up stories critical of Christianity in this country.

Right, so one stinking Southern hillbilly church momentarily refused to marry a black couple. The heavens fall.

Meanwhile, I should like to see if that black couple could marry in a synagogue.

*gasp*

No, they cannot. They cannot, because the rabbi will determine, as is largely their primary duty, that the bride and groom do not have Jewish ancestry in their maternal line. That they are goyim.

Oh, what about converts? It's a bit of a joke really, considering that of all major religions, conversion to Judaism could hardly be more onerous. Since neither bride nor groom is Jewish by birth, the likelihood they *both* could convert and marry in a synagogue is... to be polite. And statistically accurate. Infinitesimal.

So, the point of the story seems to be: Christian church is almost as racially inequitable as a Jewish synagogue. We're supposed to hate those bigoted Southern Christians and love them progressive Jews.

No. Regardless of what is politically palatable. Both are bigots, period.

Shalom! You have received an infraction for trolling. Please take your delightful Jewish conspiracy theories elsewhere.

Comments to PM.
 
I'm going to say this straight up, the Bible is not a book of complete tolerance.

Of course it's not. Anyone who's actually read it knows that there's some real narrowmindedness, advocacy of violence and bigotry woven into parts of it.

Like almost any sectarian religious text the Bible is a combination of really good moral advice and some really, really bad and even evil stuff.

That's why it and Christianity are not in and of themselves sufficient guides for how a good person should live his or her life in modern times. Morality and ethics have continued to evolve well beyond clan legends, traditional stories and rituals dating back thousands of years.
 
God is very clear on certain things we are not to tolerate. There is sin, and sin cannot be tolerated.

So, gay marriage should not be tolerated because homosexual behavior is sinful (even though I can't quite find "gay marriage" on the list of things we aren't to tolerate).

I seem to recall the Bible stating that divorce is tolerable, even though it's also sinful.

So, is there a list of things that are more tolerable than others you believe we can find or do you reserve tolerance only for items that are directly on the list like divorce, or is it just an unprincipled ad hoc list of the latest social and cultural issues?
 
If the Bible says something is not to be "tolerated," what does that mean? Kill people who do it? Rap them on the knuckles? Wag your finger disapprovingly at them?
 
The Bible is rather clear that not worshipping YHWH is intolerable...so logically Brent should disaffirm freedom of religiosen. However he does not. Apparently some things are reserved for the churches. and others for secular govt to rule upon. How does this work?
 
Actually, Caesar was well known for using creative licence in his accounts of his eve of battle speeches. The witnesses report that in reality, far from declaiming all that inspirational twaddle, he would stand up with a turnip in his hand and tell extremely crude jokes to rally his troops.
 
Actually, Caesar was well known for using creative licence in his accounts of his eve of battle speeches. The witnesses report that in reality, far from declaiming all that inspirational twaddle, he would stand up with a turnip in his hand and tell extremely crude jokes to rally his troops.

And I've never denied that figurative language is used at various points in the Bible to describe things and events that humans have no real means of understanding.

For example, the Bible has several references to apostles or disciples of Jesus (or the gospel being preached) into "all the world".

Yet I have no doubt that this doesn't mean that they traveled to Antarctica, unpopulated deserts, or climbed every mountaintop.
 
Yes, well, of course, that's really not the issue here - not really. We tolerate all sorts of things that the Bible calls sinful and/or intolerable, like interfaith marriages, and, besides that, KT, you yourself functionally decanonize the Old Testament and place Acts 2:38 over the rest, so you really aren't the best person to talk about the Bible here.

Oh, and, by the way, I did give my credentials when asked awhile back. What are yours? We're still waiting.
 
Yes, well, of course, that's really not the issue here - not really. We tolerate all sorts of things that the Bible calls sinful and/or intolerable, like interfaith marriages, and, besides that, KT, you yourself functionally decanonize the Old Testament and place Acts 2:38 over the rest, so you really aren't the best person to talk about the Bible here.

Oh, and, by the way, I did give my credentials when asked awhile back. What are yours? We're still waiting.

I've never claimed any.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top